| EtymMag 525,44.– TriantLex, ODB 481; vgl. κολωνε()α LS, L, Soph. κομζω (= κομω) blühen: VEutych 2000 codd. Longib 121,3. EtymGud κ 336. Κομανικς von Komana (Pontos): λθος Dioscur III 250,4. νορα BasilEp 206,13. der Kumanen: Anna II 136,10 etc. ALavra 65,7 etc. (a.1181). NChonHi 635 app. 22. κουμ. MetAnna 381.– TLG, Kr; vgl. Κομανοι Мог II; s. κουμνικον. κομαρα, Erdbeerbaum, Arbutus Unedo: TextPlant 2,19. BoissAn II 395. κουμ. ALaur 130,14 (a.1350/1?). Frucht des Erdbeerbaums: Galen XIX 732=PaulAeg II 404,2. κουμ. DelAn II 352,14.– Duc, (AXen S.269); Somav, Dem, Heldreich -ρι; vgl. κμαρος LS. κμαρις, rote Farbe aus der Wurzel von Comarum palustre: Alchim 339,16. Σκυθικ κμαρις StephId II 208,27.– LS, TLG. κομαροφγος Früchte des Erdbeerbaums essend: Arsen Anacr 104 (cf. NissAnacr 55).– LS. κομαστς s. κομτος κοματμπελον, τ ( < κομ[μ]τιον + μπελος) Parzelle eines Weinbergs: PetBel 285 (x.XIV; ib.279sq. male κομτος + μπελος „blühender Weingarten“ explicatum). κομτιν s. κομμτιν κοματολγιον, τ Grundstücksverzeichnis: AVaz 100,52 (a.1344). κομτος (lat. comatus) langhaarig: DelStyl 11,20 (v.l. κομαστς). κομβριον s. κουμβριον κομβαστς. s. κομπαοτς κομβντ. s. κονβ. κομβω Lärm machen: -ε δ βηντωρ (v.l. κομβιντωρ, cf. κομπινοβηντωρ ?) HalkRom 42.–κμβησαν LS; κομπω LS, L. κομβκιον s. κονβκιον κομβνα, (lat. combina) Aufstellung (der Pferde beim Rennen): DeCerV II 112,5; 137,13; 139,16. Geleitbrief (für die Benutzung der Postpferde): Rhopai 100,32, Bas А 3022,8 app.; В 3786,18. κομπνα Gespann: KonstPorphMil С 158.415. Suda κ 2017.– TLG, Duc, (Stam). κομβιντωρ s. κομβω/κομπιοβηντωρ κομβινογρφος, Aufschreiber der Pferdegespanne: DeCerV II 120,9–11.26; 153,18.19. TheophCont 198,19. κομβινοστσιον, τ Standplatz der Pferdegespanne: KonstPorphMil С 829. κομβον, τ Börse (als Geldgeschenk): OikList 231,16 (Philoth.). DeCer I 515,14; 789,4 etc. Quaste, Franse: o κροσσωτο, γουν τ διωτικς λεγμενα κομβα ScholHes Scut. 225 Pedias.). Spange: πρπαξ δ στ τ κομπον EEBS 23 (1953) 229 (s.XII). κομπα Knöpfe: SchreinFin 6,27. κομπεα Alchim 331,26.– LS, TLG, Kr + XI 409, Duc, Stam, ODB 135; s. ποκμβιον. |
| 6827 Rhet. Alex. 35,1440b.23–40; 1441a.l-5. 6828 Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.25.544. One could have honorable ancestors but make dishonorable choices (e.g., Isaeus Estate of Dicaeogenes 47). 6829 Isocrates Peace 41–53, quoted in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isoc. 17. 6830 B. Yoma 71b. A much later tradition has Aaron protest that the people who worshiped the golden calf really were children of the righteous but were simply carried away by the evil impulse (Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 32:22). 6831 See Odeberg, Pharisaism, 49. 6832 E.g., Jub. 23:10; Sir 44:19–22; 2 Bar. 57:2; T.Ab. 1:3,18; 2:3; 4:6–7; 7:8; 9:2; 13:2; 15:6,9; 16:7, 11; 17:10; 18:1; 20:3,11A; 4:10; 13:5B; m. Qidd.Á.4:4; " Abot R. Nat. 36, §94B; b. B. Bat. 17a. God could have found fault had he wished, however ( Rom 4:2 ; b. c Arak. 17a, bar.) 6833 Gen 18 ; Philo Abraham 107–114; Josephus Ant. 1.200; T. Ab. 1:4–9, 19; 3:7–9; 4:6; 17:7A; 2:3–12; 3:5–6; 4:10; 13:5B; Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Koenig, Hospitality, 15–20; probably transferred to Job in T. Job 10:1–4. 6834 Including «faithfulness» (πιστς) in testing (1Macc 2:52); cf. commentaries on Rom 4:3 . Nick-elsburg, «Structure,» 87–88, thinks Abraham " s obedient faith is less evident in Testament of Abraham. 6835 E.g., Mek. Nez. 18.36–40; b. Sukkah 49b; Gen. Rab. 38:13; 39:8; 46:1; Num. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 11:4; cf. CD 3.1–2. 6836 E.g., Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; " Abot R. Nat. 12A; 26, §54B; Gen. Rab. 30:8; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 21:33 ; Bamberger, Proselytism, 176–79. In such Amoraic traditions, surrounding peoples respected Abraham (Gen. Rab. 82:14), and Sarah witnessed through feeding Gentile infants (Gen. Rab. 53:9). 6837 Philo Migration 130, citing Gen 26:5 . The rabbis also based their case on this verse (see Pancaro, Law, 393, largely following Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:186). 6838 CD 3.2; in the rabbis, see Urbach, Sages, 1:318; Moore, Judaism, 1:275–76; also Lev. Rab. 2:10. Compare the law-keeping pre-Sinai patriarchs in Jubilees (see comment on John 1:10 ). |
| 117 Actes de Zographou, nos. 6 and 7. See also Bezobrazov, Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja, pp. 403–5. 118 Archives de l’Athos VIII, Actes de Lavra II. De 1204 à 1328, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1977), pp. 12–16, no. 72. 119 Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, pp. 93–4, no. 34, l. 7; idem, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 3. Teil: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich-Berlin, 1932), 1939b. 120 Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 86–8; Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, pp. 93–5, no. 34. 123 Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 103–7; Pavlikianov, νταξη τν Βουλγρων στν μοναστηριακ κοιντητα το γου ρους, pp. 65–8. 124 Actes de Zographou, no. 6, l. 25–33; Bezobrazov, Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja, pp. 403–5; Pavlikianov, νταξη τν Βουλγρων στν μοναστηριακ κοιντητα το γου ρους, pp. 65–8. 126 See Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, no. 8, l. 59; Boilov, Blgarite vv Vizantijskata imperija, no. 443; Pavlikianov, Ο Σλβοι στν θωνικ μον Ζωγρφου, pp. 111–12, 117. 127 See Pavlikianov, νταξη τν Βουλγρων στν μοναστηριακ κοιντητα το γου ρους, pp. 65–8. 128 A. Rigo, ‘La Διγησις sui monaci athoniti martirizzati dai latinofroni (BHG 2333) e le tradizioni athonite successive: alcune osservazioni’, Studi Veneziani, 15 NS (1988), 71–106. 132 Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 3. Teil: Regesten von 1204–1282, no. 2024. 134 Actes de Zographou, no. 13, l. 1–3. Cf. also Boilov, Blgarite vv Vizantijskata imperija, 82–3; Pavlikianov, Ο Σλβοι στν θωνικ μον Ζωγρφου, pp. 115–16. 135 Actes de Zographou, no. 52. Cf. also V. Mošin, ‘Zografskie praktiki’, Sbornik v pamet na P. Nikov. Izvestija na Blgarskoto istoriesko druestvo, 16–18 (Sofia, 1940), 292–3. 137 See Archives de l’Athos XVIII, Actes d’Iviron III, ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D. Papachrysanthou, and Vassiliki Kravari with the collaboration of Hélène Métrévéli (Paris, 1994), pp. 113–15, no. 62, l. 10–11: δι πρακτικο το Τζιμπα κενου [i.e. the deceased] κα το μνν κυρο λεξου (‘with a delivery protocol of the late Tzimpeas and Sir Alexios Amnon’). |
| 8247 Plutarch Cimon 3.1–3; Plutarch claimed that he sometimes merely observed similarities that God had created (Plutarch Demosthenes 3.2). Historical comparisons predate Plutarch as a technique of Greek historiography (e.g., Polybius 10.2.8–13). 8248 Cf. Hengel, Mark, 52, who argues that the comparison exalts the guarantor of the Johannine tradition over «the guarantor of the Markan-Synoptic tradition.» For Mark " s dependence on Peter, see Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43; for possible qualified egalitarian sentiments also in Petrine tradition, see, e.g., 1Pet 5:1–6 . 8251 Ibid., 81 (contrasting even Alcibiades, where Socrates, in exemplary manner, does not become aroused–Plato Symp. 217–218); Tilborg, Ephesus, 149. 8254 Ibid., 33–34, noting especially the competition between this disciple and Peter against the notion that the disciple was among the Twelve. Yet who but one of the Twelve could be laid most effectively against Peter? 8255 Ibid., 89. Note also the view that the Johannine «school,» while respecting the author " s anonymity, wove reports about the beloved disciple into the narrative to honor him (Michaels, John, xxi-xxii). Bruns, «Ananda,» improbably seeks to derive John " s role from that of Gotamás disciple in Indian Buddhism. 8260 Also Culpepper, School, 266. Westcott, John, 194, contrasts «bosom» as «the full fold of the robe» (13:23) with «breast,» Jesus» «actual body,» after John leans back. 8261 L.A.B. 19:16. Thus texts also spoke, e.g., of a «favorite» maid (Chariton 1.4.1, πρ πντων φλην; cf. Jos. Asen. 2:6/11; 10:4/6). 8262 E.g„ Musonius Rufus 11, p. 80.26 (title); Let. Aris. 49; î. Eph. 1944; CPJ 1.xix; CIJ l:lxvii. 8263 Hunter, John, 137; for Jesus seeking to win Judas back, see Whitacre, John, 335 (citing John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 72.2). By contrast, Stauffer, Jesus, 116, connects the bitter herbs in which the bread was dipped with a curse (citing Deut 29:18–19 ), thereby prefiguring Judas " s betraya1. The charosheth, «or sauce in which the herbs, bread and meat were dipped,» may be a Passover meal allusion from the tradition ( Mark 14:20 ; Watkins, John, 307). |
| Jesus» own teaching provokes a crisis that drives away some and confirms the commitment of others. Sometime in the decade in which this Gospel was written some Johannine communities experienced similar division over what the author of the First Epistle believed was the truth of Jesus» teaching (1 John 2:19–20). For those who heard Jesus through the grid of their cultural presuppositions rather than allowing his parabolic language to challenge their preunderstanding, Jesus» words proved too incompatible with their beliefs. Jesus explains the nature of his metaphor (6:63), but only those who persevere as his disciples will ultimately comprehend his teaching (16:25–30). 1. Too Hard to Accept? (6:59–65) The misunderstanding Jesus» words allow perpetuates John " s misunderstanding motif (cf. comment on 3:4). Jewish sages, like other ancient Mediterranean sages, often spoke in riddles; the historical Jesus, like other Palestinian Jewish sages, employed parables. 6237 His audience in this Gospel, however, proves incapable of understanding, just as those who heard his parables without persevering into his inner circle for the interpretations often failed to understand. The language used for the dispute it provokes as it divides Jesus» hearers (such division being frequent in responses to Jesus–cf. 7:43; 10:19) could even suggest that the disputants came to blows (6:52). 6238 If so, such blows could well préfigure also the times of violent conflict in which John was writing. 1A. Setting (6:59) Although narratives more frequently open with a setting, John concludes Jesus» discourse by informing us of its specific setting (6:59): a synagogue in Capernaum. 6239 While John reports little about Capernaum (2:12; 4:46), members of John " s audience familiar with the Jesus tradition will probably recall that Jesus received a significant hearing in Capernaum (e.g., Mark 2:1–2 )–but may also recall that it proved inadequate for widespread salvation, given the measure of revelation Jesus offered there (Matt 11:23/Luke 10:15). 6240 If some of them recalled the opening scene from the body of Mark " s Gospel, they would also recall that Jesus encountered conflict with a demon in that synagogue ( Mark 1:21–28 ). |
| 8286 Nor is it necessarily demeaning to them, though such a comparison could be so used (Aristophanes Clouds 821, where the diminutive retains its force). 8287 E.g., Homer Il. 24.507; Virgil Aen. 8.115; 9.735; 11.184, 904; 12.697. Greco-Roman society employed an analog)» between benefactors and fathers (Stevenson, «Benefactor»). 8289 Ovid Tristia 4.4.13; Fasti 2.130–132, 637; Herodian 2.2.9; 2.6.2; or simply «parent» or «father» (Ovid Ex Ponto 4.9.134); so also for other kings (the fictitious Ethiopian king in Heliodorus Aeth. 10.17). 8290 Plutarch R.Q. 58, Mor. 278D; Lucan C.W. 3.109; Cornelius Nepos 23 (Hannibal), 12.2; Cicero Cat. 1.4.9; 1.2.4; 1.11.27; 1.12.29; 1.13.31–32; 2.6.12; 4.1.1, 2; 4.2.3, 4; 4.3.6; 4.5.9; 4.6.11; 4.8.16, 18; Prov. cons. 1.1; 2.3; 4.8; 5.11; 8.18; 9.23; 10.25; 12.30; 13.32; 16.38,39; Pis. 20.46; 22.52; 24.56; 33.81; Pro Marcello 1.1,2; 5.13; Phi1. 1.1.1; 1.3.7; 1.4.11; Fam. 10.35.1, 2; Invective against Sallustius Crispus 1.1, 2, 3; 2.5; 4.12; 5.14; 6.16; 8.22; Silius Italicus 1.610, 675; Valerius Maximus 1.5.1; 2.2.1a; 2.7.ext.l; 2.8.4; 3.8.1; 4.1.4; 4.1.6b; 4.4.10; 4.5.1; 5.2.1; 5.8.3; 5.9.3; 6.1.10; 6.2.1; 6.6.3; 8.13.4; 8.15.1; Livy 1.8.7; 1.26.5; 2.1.10–11; 2.23.14; 2.24.2; 2.27.3; 2.32.12; 2.34.12; 2.35.3; 2.41.4; 2.48.8; 2.60.3; 3.13.7; 3.16.1; 3.21.1, 3, 4; 3.51.11; 3.52.6; 3.63.8; 4.1.4; 4.2.13; 4.60.1, 3; Sallust Cati1. 6.6; 31.7; 51.1,4, 7,12,15,37,41; 52.2.7, 35; Jug. 14.1,3,12,13,18, 25; 24.2; Speech of Philippus 1,17; Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 1, 6; Letter to Caesar 11.1; Invective against Marcus Tullius 1. 8292 Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 12.1.8; Pausanias 8.48.5–6; 8.51.7; Cicero in Plutarch Cicero 23.3; for Romés founding elders (Ovid Fasti 5.71); honorary title «father of the Greeks» (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.27.617); a kind master (Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.44) ); an ideal ruler (Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.14, claiming that this imitates Zeus " s role). Cf., for leaders in the Mithraic cult, Burkert, Cults, 42. 8295 CIJ l:xcv-xcvi; 1:66, §93; 1:250–51, §319; 1:360, §494; 1:372, §§508–509; 1:373, §510; 1:393, §533; 1:397, §535; 1:398, §537; 1:462, §645; 1:463, §646; 1:505, §694; 1:520, §720; 2:9, §739. The title was probably usually «purely an honorary one, probably involving no active duties» (Leon, Jews, 186). |
| Rom 5:5–8 ). 5059 The expression «unique Son» 5060 adds pathos to the sacrifice, drawing on an image like Abraham " s sacrifice of Isaac. 5061 Some could understand English translations (God «so» loved the world) as intending, «God loved the world so much»; but John " s language is qualitative rather than quantitative. Οτως means, «This is how God loved the world»; the cross is the ultimate expression of his love. 5062 Nowhere in this Gospel does God say, «I love you»; rather, he demonstrates his love for humanity by self-sacrifice (13:34; 14:31), and demands the same practical demonstration of love from his followers (e.g., 14:15, 21–24; 21:15–17). 5063 (See the fuller breakdown of John " s uses of «love» in our introductory section on Johannine theology.) «Give» occurs so frequently in the Fourth Gospel (sixty-three times) that it constitutes one of Johns motifs, though it is linked explicitly with love only on occasion (3:16, 35; 17:24). In some texts God specifically gives (usually either authority or the disciples) to the Son (3:35; 5:22,26–27,36; 6:37,39; 10:29; 11:22; 12:49; 13:3; 17:2,4,6, 7,8,9,11,12,22,24; 18:9,11). In these texts the Father grants Jesus disciples (6:37,39; 10:29; 17:24; 18:9); life in himself (5:26); works to do or commands to obey (5:36; 12:49), including his death (18:11); glory (17:24); supreme authority (5:22,27; 17:2); and (as an expression of that authority) all things (3:35; 13:3; cf. 11:22). God gives to others; 5064 in these texts he gives the law (1:17), his Son (3:16); authority (19:11) or a role in his plan (3:27); the true bread (6:32, i.e., Jesus); the opportunity for salvation (6:65); the Spirit (14:16); and whatever Jesus» true followers request (15:16; 16:23). Jesus is the giver in other texts, granting authority to become God " s children (1:12); the Spirit (3:34, if understood thus); 5065 the water of eternal life (4:7,10,14,15); the food of eternal life (6:27, 34); his own life as the food of eternal life (6:51–52); eternal life (10:28; 17:2); an example (13:15) and a command (13:34); peace (14:27); God " s words (17:8, 14); and God " s glory (17:22). |
| John declares that the high priest inadvertently uttered truth that differed considerably from the message he intended as truth (11:51). Oracular utterances frequently proved notoriously ambiguous and misinterpreted until their fulfillment, 7723 for instance, rulers sometimes understood prophecies as referring to the slaughter of enemies when it referred to their own defeat; 7724 or a prophecy could be fulfilled by the very attempt to evade its fulfillment. 7725 Ancients often believed that prophetic frenzy displaced the prophet " s mind, 7726 which is not the case here; 7727 but a key parallel is the concept that one who prophesied was not responsible for, or the originator of, his or her words. Josephus, who was a priest and claimed to be a prophet, regarded the Jewish priesthood as particularly prophetically endowed; 7728 whether or not John regards the priesthood as prophetically endowed, 7729 he believed that God could arrange for them to speak truth. Perhaps borrowing the Greek conception of ecstatic loss of control in prophecy, 7730 the rabbis referred to prophecies unintended and unrecognized by the speaker. 7731 Other early Jewish sources 7732 and Gentile sources, such as (reportedly) the Egyptians, 7733 recognized the possibility of unintended prophetic insights. The principle sometimes applied to truth prevailing through speakers» unintended double entendres, even without reference to prophecy. Thus hearers laughed when a speaker said one thing on a literal level in which they heard an unintended play on the accused " s behavior; they claimed that truth had prevailed over the speaker " s intention. 7734 When Caiaphas speaks of the «people» (11:50;18:14),he refers to the Jewish people. 7735 But whereas the «children of God» scattered abroad (11:52) could refer to Diaspora Jews, 7736 especially if we thought of how Caiaphas would have meant the phrase had he been the one to use it here, the prophetic, hence divine, perspective must agree with the omniscient narrator, and in the context of the Fourth Gospel it refers to believers in Jesus (1:12; 3:3–5). 7737 That they wouJd be «one» (11:52) reflects Jesus» mission for his followers (10:16; 17:22), after he delivers them from being «scattered» (10:12; 16:32). John might adapt the tenth petition of the Amidah for the regathering of the dispersed, applying it to believers, including Gentiles (cf. 12:20–23). 7738 3. Danger during Passover Season (11:54–57) |
| The high priest " s claim that it is better for one to die for the people (11:50) is important enough to John to bear repetition; it is the chief declaration for which John remembers him (18:14). If the texts that report this claim do not simply develop a commonsense tenet based on a community perspective, 7715 it might reflect a popular recognition in ancient Jewish ethics, 7716 though the Tannaim clearly opposed it under some circumstances. 7717 Using different wording, Josephus was willing to suffer more because the multitude of Galileans was so great (Josephus Life 212). 7718 Josephus elsewhere assumes this principle of greater and lesser worth when he declares that Agrippa II admonished the crowds not to fight the numerous Romans and invite wholesale slaughter of their people for the sake of a single offender and a few who suffered unjustly (War 2.353, 399); if they do fight, the Romans will burn their city and destroy their nation (War 2.397). At least in the rabbinic stream of tradition, a guilty Israelite may suffer to atone for his own sins as well as to keep Israel from being led astray. 7719 Later rabbis continued to debate whether an innocent Israelite should be sacrificed for the rest of Israel, and the view that he should apparently prevailed in the Amoraic period. 7720 Whether such views were current in the first century, however, Caiaphas " s view, as portrayed in John, stems more from «expediency» than from moral principle. 7721 At least sometimes Jerusalem aristocrats reasoned in this manner. For example, Jonathan " s allies reportedly reason that four rulers from Jerusalem are better than one (Josephus); by contrast, the masses are unpersuaded, trusting Josephus (Josephus Life 278–279). «Expediency» was a standard tool of moral reasoning among Greek philosophers, 7722 not surprising given the sort of education John " s audience could expect such elite priests to have had. But ironically the priest is quite right: it is better for the people if Jesus dies (cf. 16:7); Jesus had to die «on behalf of» his sheep (υπρ, 10:15; 11:51–52), the «scattered children of God» (10:16; 11:52). 2D. Unintended Truth (11:51–53) |
| John appears to believe that his people would have been more open to considering Jesus» claims but were hindered by a small but vocal portion of the Judean elite. John " s hostility is not toward Judaism as a whole. Yet in this light some of his uses of the term «Jews " –sometimes contrasted with the Jewish crowds (7:12–13)–appears all the more abrupt. (John sometimes does employ abruptness to draw attention to his language, e.g., 3:2–3.) John " s portrayal of «the Jews» is usually hostile, as the following tabulation shows: Negative: 1:19; 2:18, 20; 3:25; 5:10, 15, 16, 18; 6:41,52; 7:1, 11, 12, 15, 35; 8:22, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:19,24,31,33; 11:8, (46), 54,55; (18:12,14: rulers); 18:31,36,38; 19:7,12,14,21,38; 20:19 Positive: 4(for readers), 22; 11:45; 12:9,11 (cf. 12:19–20) Feasts: 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55 King: 18:33, 39; 19:3, 19 Other customs: 1834 2:6; 18:20; 19:31,40, 42 The problem is not the unqualified use of the title «Jews»; John " s fellow Jews could employ this title with neutral significance, 1835 could call themselves «Israel» but when dealing with foreigners call themselves «Jews» («Judeans»), 1836 or could apply it to Jewish opponents without in any way detracting from their own Jewishness. 1837 (The term had various uses; some inscriptions employ it geographically, as some have suggested for this Gospel; more employ it ethnically or religiously, sometimes including Gentile adherents.) 1838 The problem is that John employs the negative use of the term so frequently. It is clear that the negative use of the term «Jews» predominates in the Fourth Gospel, with second place going to «neutral» uses. More ambiguous cases not listed above do not improve this general picture. Although «ruler of the Jews» may not appear negative in 3:1, it becomes associated with a less than positive character in the following context (19:39, which treats him positively, drops the epithet), as do the «Jews» of 8whose faith in Jesus proves quite transitory. The essentially positive uses in 11:19, 31, 33 and 36 remain theologically neutral; the possibly neutral 13alludes back to the negative context of 7:34; and 19is basically negative. |
|
|
